Forum:Community Discussion Board
Does what it says in the tin. A place to bring up ideas and discuss important matters. Total needs to be demoted , , (UTC) |text= Totalimmortal has never deserved his position. He has never been useful in it and has done very little for the wikia, and has abused and misused his power on far too many occasions, while creating his admin enabling act so he can bypass rules and do as he sees fit. Total is an immature, untrustworthy, deceptive, blackmailing, threatening, and egotistical individual. He has no right to be in his position, and his allowance to continue being a member of his sight after being DarkSeer's attack dog is ludicrous. The man is a joke and should be removed from power, if not banned.}} I agree with this, especially on the part of misuse and abusive behavior. Here im going to provide some examples. Total once banned Plague because Plague's signature had lyrics to a nickelback song in it, it started with a day ban and then escalated it to an infinite ban after Supah unbanned him. Total once also banned me for an infinite amount of time after he took over the wiki with no reason given, he did unban me after I confronted him about it, but still refused to give me an answer, Im pretty sure the reason was "I didnt want anyone on the wiki who would disagree with me being the god king ruler" (anyone remember that little debacle, when Total basically crowned himself supreme overlord of us all). On April 29th 2014 he banned $17, again for an infinite amount of time, and once again, no reason given. Starting to see a pattern here? Total bans anyone and anything that poses even the most minor threat to him, the simplest term for this is a bully. So, my final question is, why do we have a bully as an admin? --Orkmarine 00:40, September 27, 2014 (UTC) Since I am new here, I can't really make an Argument for or against total, However if the it is in the Communities best interests for him to be removed, I will support them in taking this actions, Otherwise I am going to remain Neutral in this. Blackdamp (talk) 01:18, September 27, 2014 (UTC) I agree with this proposition as well. Although Totalimmortal has performed some tasks in the past that have helped bring the community together ultimately his more recent actions and attitudes have meant that he is more of a liability to the community, contributing little in terms of community projects, helping users, cleaning up the wiki, maintaining coding, or even just set an example by writing articles. On top of this his abrasive attitude and autocratic approach to his duties have hardly endeared him to other users, meaning that he doesn't represent the community well either. Overall although Total may have once been welcomed as an addition to the community, his laziness, arrogance and aggressive nature has led to the conclusion that he is no longer fit for adminship. --Cheers The Road to Hell [[User talk:Dog of War|''' is paved with good intentions']] 01:25, September 27, 2014 (UTC) I've talked to Totalimmortal many times in both private and main chat. He has shown both by his actions and his words, to me, that he cares nothing about this wiki and it's community. Many times when chatting with him, he would always try to make his actions seem like they were for the good of the wiki when it was clear in his very own words that he didn't care. Many times when I questioned him about his very questionable actions, he wouldn't give a reasonable excuse or he would brush it off as it was "deserved". I can only describe Totalimmortal as a very mocking person, not caring at all about other people's opinions. When Totalimmortal couldn't ban people for not sharing his opinion, he would dive into PM to talk to me about how "salty" someone was. As Imposter mentioned, Total is a bully. He likes to single people out, people who usually have no "status" in the wiki, to pick on them and harass them. I don't think a person like this should be in any form of power, let alone be a community member. User:VernichtungUser talk:Vernichtung September 26, 2014 (UTC) , , |text=I have very little to say other than that I agree fully with the statements being made. He doesn't care about the wiki, and he is a bully who cannot handle it when something does not go his way. He has also said to me that he doesn't even like 40k anymore. So I agree with that he should be demoted from the wiki, if not banned. }} As much as I despise the way in which I was asked to vote - to add more batter to the cake mix so to speak - those who have spoken have a perfect point to make. While I consider myself lucky to have been able to fly under the radar as it were by keeping to myself, but I have seen those who have not been as lucky. Since my return I've watched how Total has made terrible decision after terrible decision, banning outright anyone who tries to defy his will, and even ask a question about his reasons. I mean come on, asking questions? It's a sin, not a crime. LegionXIII (talk) 22:59, September 27, 2014 (UTC) As a passive watcher on the issues of total, I can vouch for those who feel dissatisfied with the current "regime" of total's ham fisted rule of our once friendly (ish) community. Not only this, but due to the sheer toxicity of our wayward brother, he taints the view of the few good admins we have. Many have heard his egotistical methods and nobody can argue with what it will eventually create: an empty wiki with total seated upon his throne of self aggrandizement. His banishment is necessary not Just because he is poison for the community at large but because he is hated so much that trust in the administration staff of our wiki is at an all time low due to his excesses. Sadness eclipses Happiness 23:34, September 27, 2014 (UTC) While I don't hold any particular deep-seated hatred or vendetta against Total, I can agree with the fact that many of his actions, such as blocking me and a number of other users for a permanent amount of time, are just unjust and harmful to the integrity of the wiki. I shall support the proposal that he be removed from his position. R17, Farxaa Admiral [[User talk:$17|If I had a railgun, I'd make '''a lot' of people pay...]]'' 12:58, September 28, 2014 (UTC) , , (UTC) |text= While I do not hold any grudges against TotalImmortal, I think that he should no longer be allowed to stay as an admin, this pains me to say this but...Total, if you could have stopped being a bully sooner, things could have ended pretty well for you, and we could have parted peacefully and while holding no grudges toward each other, but...in the end, and for the sake of this wiki... Total, you have to be demoted, there is no other way. Goodbye. }} unbreakable rules...because rules , , (UTC) |text= I want to raise the issue or the rules policy regarding cannonicity. I'm sure every one of us has his idea what 40K is like and what it should be like. There is hard cannon (no female space marines) but for the most part 40K is a massive setting where a lot of things happen. Should the policy on what is canon or not really be so needlessly strict? What exactly is gained by it? Nothing but the loss of creativity. If an explanation for something is plausible enough - even if unlikely - why work against it? 40K is fully of stuff that had 1/100000000 chance of happening, but happened. This extends to a lot of things, but the specific case I'm raising here is the Astartes and human forces. I have a depleted chapter that employs 500 "false astartes" like the Dark Angels of old did with Luther. I believe it adds to the story/theme and narrative of the Chapter and their relationships significantly. It is not something I came up with over night and I gave it a lot of thought, including an explanation of why the chapter could do it. And yet my article is now facing deletion because "it's against the rules". Are rules their own purpose? I value canon as much as anyone else, but this isn't a hard canon impossibility. Space Marine chapters have got away with doing far worse stuff, and also got condemned for less. The Imperium is not monolithic and who you have on your side and how much clout you have matters A LOT. So consider this my petition against such stiff rules. I've seen plenty of bad fanfic/chapters filled with Mary Sues that fart Land Raiders with railguns and having everything while being hated by everyone, and I understand the desire to keep such things out. But overly hard rules hurt more than they help. The modus operandi should be "''as a general rule, this is how it is, BUT if you can make a good case..." }} I know I propably shouldn't comment here, but as an admin, I'd like to point out, that we cannot enforce rules that would demand our own personal oppinions. Why? Because that would be arbitrary, and none likes that and could even lead to such points that we as an admins would say nay for articles written by users we don't exactly like. Because let's face it, we are humans too and don't like everybody, and are eager to abuse our powers (as human beings) if such opportunity is given. Current canon policy is the one and only that has been on this site forever, even before me, it was "polished" by me into its current state back in the summer. Who can say what parts are actually "hard-canon" and what not? Considering the schismatic nature of 40k universe. No female marines, huh? Why not? If I make it a good case, can I do it then? Because honestly I've seen such chapter on this site which was better than about half of the current chapters on this site. No Legions/Primarchs... why? Because I've seen damn good Primarch articles and stories how they were lost and done... but sadly, I've red so much complete bullshit about lost legions and primarchs, as many other have I think, that we do not want to see them popping on this site. Why? Because they tend to be badly written, filled with spelling/grammatic mistakes, contradict established canon, are left unfinished et cetera. That is why the current rules are what they are, not strict, no. To you they are strict because you didn't read them before you decided to contribute, and then got pissed off, for not following our rules. To me they are clear. They leave nothing in question on the matters each clause talks about. Arbitrary rule is never good, you should know better not to even suggest such. --Remos talk 18:50, November 25, 2014 (UTC) well here as a user is the problem. I myself fought with a user called User:Bladiumdragon, since he thought he was "friends" with TotalImmortal, that he was above the rules and that the Admins were beneith him. He also used the arguement that his pages were "accepted" at the time of creation and that thus changing rules did not apply to him as they were only to be followed if a user felt like it. His pages were the farting land raiders you just talked about, you give one of us as users a little bit of freedom and suddenly a dozen fanfiction.net naruto fanfic writers will spam this site with Naruto marines and other horrible BS. Already i think it's possible enough with a writer to get away with things if they are cleaver about it. IE, Unbroken Spears exact same thing you were just suggesting done just a little differently as to logically not draw attention to the fact and fit perfectly within the established realm of hard cannon and this sites own tight leash. Allow me a demonstration. This is your body...WITHOUT FIBER! (talk) 19:08, November 25, 2014 (UTC) Just to clarify, the Community Discussion Board is open to everyone. While we have an Admin Discussion Board for further deliberation of highlighted topics amongst the Administrators, general topics that are concerned with the Administrative body can be responded to here. Now, as for the issue with the Canon Policy, TrashMan, I'd like to offer another perspective. Like your chapter that employs '''False Astartes', that you state "is not something I came up with over night and I gave it a lot of thought", so to is the Canon Policy "not something we came up with over night". It is the result of close on eighteen months of refining through open blog debates, discussions and propositions made by the community. This is not something that is taken lightly as rigorous discourse takes place for each and every item added to the Policy. Any attempts to change it would have to go through the official process and be run by the community through multiple dialogues. First off, you would need to highlight the particular area on the Canon Policy's talk page. Secondly, if support was garnered, you would have to bring it up the specific point here. If the community doesn't respond, then it is an assumed veto of the idea. If it meets those three criteria then a Blog Discussion may be launched to discuss it in greater detail and the change may be accepted at the discretion of the admins. We do not operate a monolithic system here but nor do we bow to the pleas of individual users in the face of their desire to cast aside integral parts of the site's policies on a whim. Any wish to change contentious issues can only be done so with concise community cooperation undertaken through the proper protocols. --'KhalaelMy Talk' 19:28, November 25, 2014 (UTC) As the original architect of the Canon Policy I have to tell you that you really don't understand how much of a blessing it has been. Before we instituted it we Admin had to suffer long arguments with Users trying to justify clearly outrageous ideas, and convince them how wrong they were. Now with certain parts of the canon clarified in the policy we can simply point to them and end the debate, and thus free up time and energy to work on other areas of the site. Furthermore the points elaborated upon in the Canon Policy are mostly clear cut areas of canon that we have found Users routinely violating. Otherwise they are contentious issues that have resulted in awful articles almost without fail. I good example of the latter would be Loyalist Traitors, or Extra-Galactic Xenos. So a consensus was reached among the community that such things would be banned. Also as Khalael stated these policies are not created lightly, or arbitrarily. Every single time a revision to the Canon Policy is considered the community is asked to give their perspective on the proposed change, and it is only instituted by majoirty consensus. The Admins alone do not determine the policy. Now if you want me to explain why your non-Astartes Chapter Soldiers are not allowed then please message me. I can go on it detail about why such things violate canon. --I am your master! At your service. (talk) 20:06, November 25, 2014 (UTC) @Rasmos - no female space marines are hard canon because it was specifically mentioned in the fluff as a physical impossibility. As in, created by the Big E with men in mind and no one understands his work enough to copy it. I guess you could come up with some explanation, but it would be so far-fetched and contrary to the established reality (Big E being a genius, technological knowledge insufficient) that it's no wonder it wouldn't be accepted. But even then you could argue that you could accept such articles, but marked them as canon-hostile without deleting them. After all, everything here is fan-fiction anyway. As far as the Guard Exemplar go, there is nothing really preventing them physically. It's a matter of consent from imperial authorities - and that consent CAN be had. I also like to point that that every rule is formed by opinion, and thus even "no SM chapter will ever do X" is also a product of opinion. And as far as rules being strict, not really. Restrictive, yes. Come common sense and critical thinking is not much to ask. Blanket rules are almost always universally bad. There is always a never-ending battle between being creative and bringing in new stuff and that new stuff being in line with the view of purists. And there is always the problem with bad fan-fic. Oh god, the things I have seen... Kaldor Draigo and Guillemen on steroids seem like nothing in comparison. You have my sincere sympathies for having to waddle trough such stuff. That's why quality control exists. @Superbadmarine - I have no doubt such a policy was a blessing to you. Reduction of your workload is always a blessing - to the one doing the work. However, laws and policies are double-edged swords, and come with negatives. And I would like to hear your input, so please, don't spare the detail. TrashMan (talk) 10:35, November 26, 2014 (UTC) Ok trash man, lore as a matter of opinion? Fanfiction? 1)its also a bad author's option that his work is perfect, typically as theyve only ever played DoW and never read a codex let alone a BL book. 2) Fanfiction....yeah,ahhhh, no. this and this are fanfiction, one is great and the other is meh, but both are matters of Opinion from the author.no matter how well written Allow me a demonstration. This is your body...WITHOUT FIBER! (talk) 11:16, November 26, 2014 (UTC) You are talking only about your article. Now, do not try to justify that particular article's content here, but instead make valid points about the policy's flaws. Canon policy exists because the GW's stuff is... how should I put this? It doesn't even adhere itself and gives loads of ideas about all kinds of stuff which would be seen unappropriate for 40k universe by many. You should think the canon policy as "canon established upon 40k universe by this site's community" and not in a way "they are just someone's oppinions". If we would allow people to do stuff under template "this is written as NCF and shouldn't be considered as canon friendly", would that make any point? No. Canon policy is there so there are absolute truths about 40k universe, for this community at least. Again you propose arbitrary rule. You think it will end up well when 30 users come to debate about one article's canonicity, when author is changing the content all the time? Because certainly such "depending on situation" rules couldn't be enforced by admins, so users it is. I tell you, it will not end in anywhere but 30 bans for trolling, flaming, cursing and provoking. Now think about it really hard, really hard please. You want such canon policy on this site, that anyone at any given time can come to any article and say, "hmph, I don't think this is so good that this should be allowed"... and then the article gets deleted. I appreciate your output, because that is what this board is for, but at the moment your idea about such arbitrary enforcing of rules that doesn't exactly exist, is plain stupid. --Remos talk 11:19, November 26, 2014 (UTC) TrashMan if you want to challenge the rules do so by being clever. Not just rejecting the rules. There is a "hard-fact" no more than 1000 SM rule standing in the lore (ignored by Matt Ward and most GW whenever they feel like it) by challenging that rule with a thing called LEGALISM, i already solfed your actual gripe of "why can't i just have awesome not space marine, space marines in my chapters".... Unbroken Spears its about working through the rules and applying the legal loopholes. Big difference between what ive got and your chapter about 500 suits of power armor. Allow me a demonstration. This is your body...WITHOUT FIBER! (talk) 11:46, November 26, 2014 (UTC) ERm... @Remos - "canon established upon 40k universe by this site's community" - how is that not arbitrary? If by your own admission 40K allows more and is more lax, yet you decide to enforce a specific standard that is basically "how I (we) think 40K should be", than that is as arbitrary as everything else. The rules as you put them in ARE opinions. Opinions that this is how it has to be, that articles that deviate - for whatever reason - are not "good enough". And I understand your desire to keep low-quality garbage off the wiki, but a header to warn a reader would serve just as well. Guidelines - strong guidelines - are useful. But everything should be judged on a case-to-case basis. After all, it is the only proper way to do things. And no, I don't think my article is perfect - it never is. I'm a harsh critic of everyone, and myself the most. I have mountains of stuff written but I consider 99% of it garbage. I even long contemplated before deciding to put this up on the wiki. In other words, no matter how I look at it, I don't see the article as breaking established canon - especially not now with the edits I made. It might break YOUR idea of canon, which is far more restricted, and that is the issue I'm having here. As far as enforcing it goes, where exactly is the problem? Reason, logic and debate - if you can make a good case for the article, you can. Other users can't delete or change while they may comment, so in the end it would still be up to the mods/admins as it has always been. The difference being that more weight is given to "the spirit of the law" rather than the "the letter of the law" @plaguenumber - I fail to see your point. A space marine is a space marine, power armor or not (and the GE don't really use it anyway). What is the difference between the Broken Spears and the Guard Exemplar? As far as I can tell "these are all aspirants. They are not full SM's yet, but will be... maybe. So it's OK if we bring a few hundred of them along to fight." So again - historical precedent for their use, low numbers, mostly defensive, good relation with the highest imperial authorities in the sector, and the total number of marines + exemplar is around 1000. So again, please provide me with a better reasoning for why it is non-canon. TrashMan (talk) 09:24, December 1, 2014 (UTC) 1. "...But everything should be judged on a case-to-case basis. After all, it is the only proper way to do things". How is this the proper way? It appears rather arbitrary to me. That's essentially you saying how you think rules and policies should be. 2. Arbitrary or not, the current canon policy is still agreed upon by the majority of the community, and has been tried and tested to be effective. But feel free to run a campaign gathering votes against our canon policy, we're a democratic wiki after all. But here I'm repeating what's already been said. Khalael said it rather eloquently, "...Any attempts to change it policy would have to go through the official process and be run by the community through multiple dialogues." — NecrusIV [[User_Talk:NecrusIV|(Talk)]] 11:22, December 1, 2014 (UTC)ty Its simple TrashMan...the diffrence is one is a part of the chapter and scout marines not asperants, scout marines will be ome SM, they arn't testing to see if they may. And another point on your GW is more lax than this site argument, GW allows the missing legions and doesn't care as they can sue or steal from their fans if they want, keeping order isn't their goal, profit is. As they've proven they dont care about lore or even logic as highlighted by a space marine in a space marine. But back to me teying to help and use the Unbroken Spears to show you how to pass this. Its all in the terminology and how your chapter goes about it. A scout marine undergoes most of the biological modifications needed to be a SM (thats part of why teens are used) and they then become space marines once the Gene-seed gets inserted. As the way you have them stated now they are just guardsmen with some cool gear serving the chapter. As the Spears do it is still questionable and they are inquisitionally observed. Its a lore loophole, scout marines are members of the chapter and fully allowed on the battlefield but with a little legalism you can consider scout marines as not being true SM due to lack of a gene-seed (though thats pretty much the only missing mod) Allow me a demonstration. This is your body...WITHOUT FIBER! (talk) 20:00, December 1, 2014 (UTC) As a long time member of the community I have seen the canon policy go through alterations. And I can tell you now that in its current form it is streamlining content to make it at a higher standard then it was 2, 3 years ago where things were a lot more lax. These criticisms that the canon policy is damaging creativity is simply not true - looking through the works of users such as Supahbadmarine, Imposter101, Solomus-Blackwing, RemosPendragon, Vernichtung, and much, much more shows that creativity is in abundance here. This is a community website, and you sign up to the rules, and saying that they are to arbitrary because you don't want to change an aspect of your work is in my opinion very selfish. --Cheers The Road to Hell [[User talk:Dog of War|''' is paved with good intentions']] 22:56, December 1, 2014 (UTC) Trashman, I already warned you not to bring up your article in this discussion and Plague could do such too. If you want to talk about an article, please do so in that particular article's talk page, not here. I judge the canon policy as it is written. I do not read between any lines there or have odd insights about the canon policy. All clauses are written as simply and understandably as they get, it was flawed for quite amount of time before it went through so there is hardly any questions about it. If rules at the moment are not good for you, I recommend you to put up a blog post where you clearly, note: very clearly and without any doubt, say which parts of the canon policy (which is in question at the moment) you find disturbing and want to change. Then you tell, note: very clearly and without any doubt, how should they be changed and/or removed, add content, overhaul them or like. And if you think it is not worth your time, I'll guarantee that rambling on CDB won't be either. You do not need to worry if it gets attention, if it is about changing policies, it will. Now, I suggest you all stop talking about Guard Exemplar or any other article on this site, because this is not the place for such. --Remos talk 08:50, December 2, 2014 (UTC) @RemosPendragon - the strict and blind enforcement of those policies is my beef. I don't even comprehend how "judging things on their own merits, case-by-case" could be wrong. Instead of freely creating people have to resort to rule-layering like they are in a court of law. Still, there is little choice, given that there is no other 40K fan wiki of note. That in essence gives you power. Conform or GTFO. That DOES cripple creativity, there is no if's and buts about it. Do I think such blanket policy is flawed? Yes. And I will think so till the day I shed off my mortal coil. Anywhoo, replying to some of these things on the Guard Exemplartalk. TrashMan (talk) 14:40, December 3, 2014 (UTC) Simply put the Admins don't have enough time to judge everything by their own merits on a case by case basis any more. In the old days when the wiki was smaller, it was perhaps feasible to operate with some leniency and it is true that things were generally allowed to slide more often than not (even if this lead to a lot of badly written articles being permitted to exist and lead to the community realising there was a need for stricter policies). However, now that we have to keep track of close on 100 users and 1,500 edits per month while actively working to remove the poorer quality pages from the 1600 we currently have, resolve coding issues, update templates, offering advice to new users etc. it would be a waste of time to have to go through every page and check every edit to see if things now cut mustard. Added to that is the fact that for that poorly written and maintained articles are common enough that it would considerably slow down clean up if we didn't have the more bureaucratic systems in place that allow for warning templates to be given. In most cases, users will realise there is an issue and fix it. In others, the user is no longer active nor cares for the article and it will be deleted. Now, as for the "that DOES cripple creativity" fallacy. Resolving to copy other features is not creativity. QED. We tend to put limitations on attempts to ape other canonical characters and factions in a manner that is deemed to be out with the spirit of the canon. So if you want to call it a "Conform or GTFO" situation, there are alternate 40k Fanon Wikis out there if you would rather try your luck with them. --'KhalaelMy Talk''' 15:51, December 3, 2014 (UTC) Forums update :A thing I'd like to bring up. Any of you don't happen to think that the "new" forum build, would be better than this old one? The new system is waaaaay more user friendly and requires a lot less maintaining (new threads are visible even without adding them through insideous source dabbling), and it would in most of the cases free the blogs from those wiki-wide question and leave blogs feature for blogging only. Which it is meant to. I also think that anyone familiar with actual forums, like me, would find the new forum system a lot more appealing and easy to get on with than this bastardised wiki-forum we have here now. :This "new" forum system looks like this. Admin team also supports this change at the moment. All old material from the current forums will be archived and left untouched for future. Any thoughts? --Remos talk 18:12, September 21, 2015 (UTC)